Doing this by tenure seems like a fairer way to distribute the liquidity. The founders still get preferential access to it, but because they really have taken more risk (bigger stake for a longer time period), not just because they have a better individual negotiating position.
> The founders still get preferential access to it, but because they really have taken more risk
It's not related to risk, at least not directly. It's related to the supply of entrepreneurship as a factor of production. Entrepreneurship is scarce, so founders have leverage in any bargaining situation against early employees, who are more numerous and therefore less valuable and less powerful. If 10x the number of people tried to become founders, then founders would hold less leverage and the equity terms would become more "fair" because they'd have no choice but to give generous terms if they wished to hire people.
Your comment is somewhat buried downthread, but I think this is a super valuable insight. Ultimately it's not about fairness, it's about who has negotiating power, and about what contract terms founders and investors can get away with and still have a pool of employee talent competent enough for their needs.
But this isn't a static situation. For example, the article author points out that his startup doesn't reduce the options-expiration clock to 90 days after leaving the company, and I've read of similar cases in the past 5 years or so. I wouldn't say this practice is common now, but I feel like this was unheard of around, say, 2010.
After the company I worked at went public in 2016, they did another public offering 2 or 3 months later, before the 6-month lockup period ended. Nonetheless, they allowed employees to participate and sell up to 10% of their shares in this offering. I feel like this sort of thing is more common these days, and absolutely wasn't 20 years ago.
Established still-private companies like Stripe, and even newer ones like OpenAI, have given employees the opportunity to sell some of their equity to new investors during funding rounds, giving them some pre-IPO/pre-exit liquidity. There are certainly other examples of this in recent years. That surely was rare in the past.
I'm not sure what's driving these changes. Employees have been gaining more negotiating power somehow. Maybe that's a function of labor supply. Maybe that's a function of employees being better educated now about corporate finance and the things that are possible but historically not offered. Not sure.
Tenure/cliffs/etc should already take care of that by gating access to shares/options/etc in the first place. No need to add an extra tenure complication to liquidity as well.
